Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[HolyMan]

Perhaps this was covered somewhere in the 23 pages of this thread or one of the previous threads; honestly, I haven't read every response...

Doubt it think it has been edition wars since page 2

But the edition shouldn't matter. Like I said before when I get together to RP no matter what the system it is, I tell everyone I'm playing D&D.

The getting together around the table, pizza on the way, character sheets and dice all about is the same no matter if I'm a dwarf in full armor or a guy in tights. It shouldn't matter what your playing, what should matter is you have fun playing it.

HM

 

[Argyle King]

Doubt it think it has been edition wars since page 2

But the edition shouldn't matter. Like I said before when I get together to RP no matter what the system it is, I tell everyone I'm playing D&D.

The getting together around the table, pizza on the way, character sheets and dice all about is the same no matter if I'm a dwarf in full armor or a guy in tights. It shouldn't matter what your playing, what should matter is you have fun playing it.

HM

That's a view I can live with. That's not to say I still won't debate the merits and flaws of various systems, but I think it's good to realize that having fun is what matters most.

 

[BryonD]

I'd love to have one of the Paizo guys chime in on this, because I'm almost positive I have seen James Jacobs or Erik Mona say, almost verbatim, "We created the Pathfinder RPG so we could keep selling our adventures."

I'll chime in here and back that. It is my understanding that this is completely true.

However, it also my understanding that the game itself is blowing the doors off the expectations which were in place when that choice was made.

I think their APs are still their biggest seller. But I'm confident that their basis has migrated from AP dominant to a much more balanced situation.

Talking about a choice that was made when APs were the start and end of their business model doesn't say much about where they are now that PF has wildly exceeded everyone's expectations.

 

[BryonD]

Neither is correct. My interpretation was:

The fact that Paizo produced Pathfinder was not seen as a pull on those undecided on whether or not to stick with 3e.

I never made any claim about people who were undecided. Read my quote again. I very specifically described that a lot of people were already completely decided.

I think, given the language used, the above is a pretty reasonable interpretation to take away. And I disagree with that statement. If you disagree as well, that's great, we have no argument here, we can move on.

How is there any way for you to get "undecided" out of "it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E." There is nothing remotely "undecided" stated or implied in that. Decision was already over and done with is the only reasonable interpretation.

Let's be honest, though, guys. The reason Paizo produced Pathfinder in the first place was to keep a current set of 3e-compatible rules in print. If they hadn't concluded that a lack of current support in the form of in-print core rulebooks wasn't important to their market share (and to the continued participation of the community in 3e-compatible games), Paizo wouldn't have produced the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The fact that Pathfinder exists is evidence of active support playing a significant role in deciding what system people play.

Again, to be clear, if it was all about the fact that people just wanted to stick with 3e over 4e, Paizo wouldn't have had to produce their own version of the game. They could have continued selling their adventure paths with no problems, because people were just sticking with 3e for the rules, and current support would just be icing on the cake. I'm sure some of you do see current support as icing on the cake. Paizo, however, clearly anticipated that for a significant chunk of their potential market, current support was a great deal more than just icing.

I actually agree with this.

But you seem to be trying to make a correlation where none exists.

Yes, it is an obvious and good plan to keep in print the rule set that supports your APs.

But that has no bearing on the persistent reality that people who don't want to play 4E are not going to play 4E. You can't point at someone who says "4E sucks" and claim "If it weren't for PF, you would be playing 4E." Or, I guess you can, but you won't be taken seriously.

 

[HolyMan]

I wouldn't be playing 4e had there been no Pathfinder.

I was happily playing my HomeBrewed 3e (even a campaign here). When I got the chance to jump in a game (here in EnWorld) of PF. As we played I learned that I enjoyed some of the changes and then my gamer need* kicked in and now I play more PF than 3e.

HM

*gamer need = need to own every book and module.

 

[Dannager]

But that has no bearing on the persistent reality that people who don't want to play 4E are not going to play 4E. You can't point at someone who says "4E sucks" and claim "If it weren't for PF, you would be playing 4E." Or, I guess you can, but you won't be taken seriously.

I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then. My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is not currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) and have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.

It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.

That's already been covered. I know that I mentioned more casual players would probably respond to the in-print status of a game.

 

[Dannager]

That's already been covered. I know that I mentioned more casual players would probably respond to the in-print status of a game.

Okay.

 

[HolyMan]

For me it wasn't totally the game rules there were some I liked and thought about bringing over to my 3e HB game.

I thought of a + 1 per 2 lvls to every skill. Kind of a the older you get the more you learn how things work. You see it done enough so you get the bonus.

Ritual books for utility spells. Sine no one every takes them otherwise.

+1/2 your BAB as a Defensive Bonus to AC.

My problem was the way it felt as I played 4e. It felt off to me. And it could have been because of 8 years of 3e and 10+ years of the other systems. I don't like the play of it for me it is geared for a younger faster want to do as many neat things as I can in an encounter. And I'm an old schooler who would rather role-play than roll-play.

HM

 

[Argyle King]

I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then. My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is not currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) and have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.

It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.

You also have to consider that it's possible -had PF not been created- that some of those people who didn't like 4E would have gone to a different gaming system which is actively supported.